Cafe Owner Hands Lesbian Couple Condemning Letter

Ed McGovern, owner of the The Stingray Café in New Bern, North Carolina, has taken it upon himself to hand notes such as this one to homosexual couples that he notices in his establishment, condemning their wicked actions and asking them to change their vile ways. This note, specifically, was handed to Ariel and Shawnee McPhail on December 4th, because McGovern said that he noticed them kiss outside of his establishment (as most married couples tend to do).

“First of all, we didn’t kiss. We don’t kiss in public. We were holding hands,” said Shawnee McPhail. “Secondly, if I did kiss my wife in public, what married couple would you go to and say, ‘how dare you. You cannot hold hands and you cannot kiss in public therefore you deserve my judgement.'”

McGovern confirms that he did hand the note to the women, that this is not the first note he’s given on the subject and that he did it out of love. The McPhails, however, believe that though everyone is entitled to their opinions, McGovern crossed a line.

I may have to agree with the McPhails on this one. Here’s a transcript of the note:

“God said in the last days that man and wom[a]n would be lover of self, more [than] the lover of God.

That man and woman would have unnatural [affection] for one another. Then, the coming of the Son of Man, who is Jesus. So please, look at your life. See how it hurt[s] everyone around you. And ask the Lord to open your eye[s] before it [is] to[o] late.

The Love of Christ

P.S. my daughter also was gay. It destroy[ed] her life and my grandson.”

This is not the dumbest nor the most offensive way to espouse your beliefs, but it is entirely pointless and ineffective. Even if you believe homosexuality to be a sin, it isn’t illegal, and is becoming more socially acceptable. Getting in people’s faces about it won’t change anything, and just makes you look like an ass. Admonishments like this are generally only useful when the person will have a decent reason to feel like you’re right; that you have a common belief with which to base the admonishment on. If you’re a Christian, getting in someone’s face and using God as a support for your argument isn’t useful unless both you and the person you’re talking to have that belief in common.

Then there’s the point that this is an entirely stupid approach from a Christian perspective from the beginning.

Terence Ng

I like the “hurting everyone around you” and “destroyed my daughter and her son” parts, because you could probably just respond, “Well, shit! It sure seems to be working for ME.”

TruuuV

1. “Was gay.” like that shit just wears off after a bit.

2. If God created all in his image and is an omniscient being he knew before he even began the creation of humanity that some of them would be homosexuals and yet went on to create them, meaning A. He’s not all judgey and gay hatey or B. He’s a monumental dick that created homosexuals then instantly condemned them to hell for being something he made them.

3. How you gonna fuck with a woman who’s name is Ariel Mcphail. SHE’S A MERMAID AND THE EMBODIMENT OF INTERNET IN ONE BEING.

You bring up a good point. If “God” doesn’t make mistakes and “God” knew exactly what he was doing, then he knew he was creating humans who would be homosexual. If none of that is true, then doesn’t that mean “God” was wrong and not all knowing?

:O Is this the part where we divide be zero and the universe implodes?

TruuuV

This is the part where faith gets brought into it and we have to back out because fuck a truck full of faith for a handful of science.

I wouldn’t be surprised, to be honest. Though it’s not something that happens all the time, but it is something that happens often enough that it’s a concern. There are parents who simply push the issue too far.

PapaSloth

“… what married couple would you go to and say, ‘how dare you. You cannot hold hands and you cannot kiss in public therefore you deserve my judgement.’”

I would wonder if the kissing and resulting sex was terrible, but then, how would they know anyway?

TruuuV

That’s what makes it so great. They’re both awful so they can get good with each other and never realise it.

Mochipants

I don’t understand Christians. You say God says being gay is a sin but then you refute the fact that in the exact same chapter, to stone your children for disobeying. Stop using your faith to justify your horrible, repugnant prejudices. You all make me sick.

FyLark

To be fair, not all Christians are bigoted, bible-thumping assholes, just as not all Muslims are terrorists.

Mochipants

Oh, of course not. But of all the ones I have known in my entire life, only a tiny percentage of them think gays are good people. Most are merely tolerant of them, while still thinking they’re hell-bound sinners.

FyLark

At least they’re tolerant of them. I don’t agree with some peoples lifestyles and there are plenty of people I don’t think kindly of, but I tolerate them because they’re not causing any sort of harm to anyone.

Terence Ng

I hope you get the opportunity to meet some of the nice ones then. Some of the fiercest pro-gay, progressive people I know and aspire to be like are also devout Christians. :)

evilplatypus

You know the political views regarding homosexuality of every single one of your friends? I’m more than willing to bet a lot of your Christian friends are not bigoted assholes and you just don’t realize it because:
a – they don’t shout their religion from the roof tops
b – they don’t shout their political beliefs from the roof tops.

Regrettably, people filled with hate tend to also be loud-mouthed.

trxr

Actually, I do know the political views of my friends regarding homosexuality, since if they are not in favour of my having equal rights, then they are not my friends. I have three friends who are Christian. Compared to the percentage of professed-Christians, even in as secular a country as NZ, this is not an overwhelming proportion of the people I know.

Yes, there are “liberal” Christians who are not anti or disdainful of homosexuality. They are not the majority, in my experience, even in Western countries. (And certainly are not in non-Western countries.)

dailyoftheday

Non-bigoted Christian here, calling in for duty! I left my Bible at home because, well, no one really knows what that thing says anyway.

-N

FyLark

I’m Christian-ish – I was baptized and I went to a Christian preschool, and I vaguely remember a church service (or maybe it was a wedding) but that’s about it. I suppose I’d identify as agnostic now.

Conspiracy Einstein

I know what it says. I got my degree in it. Literally.

TruuuV

Literary*.

*Bud um tsssh*

ilovellamas

This is quite harsh, don’t you think? I find Christians to be perplexing because I’ve never met one who believes EVERYTHING in the bible… everyone seems to pick and choose what they want to believe. I don’t care if they do that (as long as they view their beliefs as a personal thing and don’t try to push them on others – I have multiple Christian friends who are totally cool), but I definitely don’t get it. I guess that’s part of why I’m agnostic – if the bible was really written by a god, who are we humans to interpret it? How are we to know what it originally meant? And after centuries of translation, with all the mistakes that have been proven, I just don’t know how anyone can know what to believe in the bible, and what not to believe.

Meh. In terms of gay bashing, this was probably the most tame. He didn’t kick them out, he didn’t turn a hose on them (probably out of fear that they’d start an impromptu gay wet t-shirt contest), and he didn’t get violent with them in any way, shape, or form.

As a gay man, let me say this: It’s perfectly okay to dislike gay people. Accept the fact that you are prejudiced, and run with it if it so inclines you. So long as you keep your laws and fists off me, as well as remember I’m still a paying customer helping you keep your doors open, business or otherwise, I could care less what you think about me. It’s called “tolerance,” and it’s all anyone should ever ask for or expect in this day and age.

Terence Ng

Yes, and as a gay man, I feel that definition includes NOT handing me letters about what you think about my life. You have opinions about me? Keep them to yourself and shut the fuck up and I won’t tell you what I think about how you probably ruined your daughter’s life and probably sucked as a parent and all around human being.

They’re words. With all due respect, in the grand scheme of things, if my day can be lowered by words that aren’t said publicly and aren’t used in a way to somehow damage my life or property, then there really should be a thickening of skin going on here. One note or knowing that there’s people who feel a certain way about me isn’t going to weaken my opinion of myself, my husband, or my relationship.

That said, yes, this situation is lame. It is still gay bashing. But, again, it is tame, as I said. This is really “meh.” He didn’t work a crowd into a frenzy, he didn’t say it where everyone could see and belittle them in front of everyone, and he didn’t kick them out of his restaurant (see: “after their meal”). For all the knee-jerk reactionaries giving him one star reviews on Yelp, and the fact that they publicized this, it only shows how much it got under their skin, that it was exacerbated to the point of a grand affront to the gay community.

Sorry I’m not toeing the line, but this is really a giant non-issue, and the backlash/attention he’s getting is more than a little extreme. It’s not like he’s them the proceeds from their meal is going to people who helped support the “Kill the Gays” bill or telling them to get forced reparative therapy.

Terence Ng

First off, I don’t care about you toeing the line, so don’t apologize for it. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I really have no interest in trying to corral you in to some group stance toward the gay agenda. So let’s get that one out right there.

Second, I emphasize that it’s not about them just being words, or this being an isolated incident. It’s about the realm of acceptability in interacting with people, which is why I brought up that I wouldn’t care if it’s ONE letter. What I care about is it being part of a larger pattern of people, usually religious ones, thinking they have business telling me or anyone else what they think ALL THE TIME. That’s the line between belief and action and the frequency with which it happens.

It’s about the little things together. It’s this guy handing them a letter. Then it’s their neighbor coming to their door to tell them to get right with God. Another day, it’s someone putting a flyer on their car, or a pamphlet in their mailbox. It’s that asshole standing on the street corner with a sign and that dumbass in the campus quad.

If none of those things had ever happened before to anyone ever, this guy’s letter would be nothing. On it’s own, it’s not that much. But in the pattern of butting into LGBT people’s lives that happens on a daily basis, it’s one more example of that. It is the acceptability of its frequency and constancy. In the larger pattern, it’s a culture of harassment. And frankly, it’s problematically part of a religious culture that teaches its followers that they are both morally justified and compelled to tell people like us what they think of us and convince us to leave behind our “immoral” lives every time they encounter us. In all likelihood, this letter isn’t the first time someone has done something similar to this couple. It’s probably not the first time it’s happened to any of the people who reacted viscerally to it.

And it’s not apples versus apples. Comparing it to Kill the Gays, reparative therapy, or hangings and imprisonment is apples to oranges. There’s aggressive prejudice and there’s institutionalized prejudice and neither of them are acceptable, even if one is less overt.

That’s my take on it. He made the choice to voice his God-given religious opinion and take certain actions about how unacceptable their behavior is, and they did the exact same. Unfortunately for him, other people don’t view his actions as being acceptable either. As you said, it’s fine for people to have anti-gay beliefs. That’s their business. But as I said, keep it to yourself. I can’t read your mind. So if you’re not saying/doing anything to me as I go about my life, then I have nothing to say/do to you in response.

And that’s really what this boils down to. You don’t see the difference. There is a difference between a non-hostile attempt to exchange opinions, and one that would go and shout it in a public forum. “It’s problematically part of a religious culture,” you say, yet this person wasn’t doing anything -but- giving his opinion in a calm fashion that did -nothing- to block these people from doing what they were doing. He didn’t tell them to leave, he didn’t do anything more than express his opinion in, quite possibly, the best way possible.

And, really, don’t twist my words. I’m not implying that any level of prejudice is socially acceptable, I’m saying that the impact and/or prejudice in this situation is absolutely minimal. As I say, that needle never should have pieced the skin. This is such a non-incident. Yet because other people do it in less than calm ways, this person is guilty by association.

But, at any rate, I don’t think I have any more to add to this conversation. There’s not really much I can do to debate this point further, and I won’t even entertain the idea that silencing people is the only way to keep moving forward.

Ruminum

I wasn’t twisting your words. I was expressing a point that wasn’t discussed: that passive acts of prejudice are distinct from overt acts of prejudice. No, it’s not like he gives his money to anti-gay Ugandan political issues, but that doesn’t dismiss what it is.

I don’t think you see the difference between people acting with the discretion to mind their own business and people being “silenced”. One is out of common courtesy and the other is forced. They didn’t ask for his opinion. He took it upon himself.

I don’t walk into churches unasked and leave notes telling them what’s wrong with their religion. Why would I? In what society should I view it as a natural part of my life that I’ll want to enjoy a nice evening with someone I care about and do something as rudimentary as eat food a restaurant and have to receive a missive from someone I don’t even know about their opinion on the quality of my life, completely unsolicited. And why should I accept that this is a decent thing for them to do? Why should a church accept repeated quiet harassment from some atheist they’ve never encountered? Why should a Christian church goer be harassed with polite, yet constant warnings of getting right with God from some proselytizing Muslim because they wear a cross and happened to walk by?

I think you missed my point that it’s not about his guilt by association because other people do it more vociferously or dangerously. My entire point is that it’s about these seemingly minimal things adding up. Your neighbor, this guy, someone on a street corner, or someone sticking a flyer in your window are nobody of consequence. What they do is comparatively nothing of major consequence. But together, they are five instances where someone interrupt your daily life to tell you how bad it is. And in some cases, it’s five instances in one day. The seemingly innocuous anti-gay events that someone is forced to accept in their daily life is part of a cumulative experience. The idea is already present is discussions of racism in Annie Barnes’ book “Everyday Racism: A Book for All Americans”. It’s easy to dismiss small acts of prejudice in isolated contexts, but it’s important to look at their effects cumulatively.

And yes, it is a part of proselytizing religious culture. It is an example of the ways in which some religions urge their followers to spread their word. The reasons for doing this are okay because, as he said, they’re “done out of love”, they’re “urgent”, to prevent someone from being “blind to Jesus”. You’re allowed to do these things because you’re religion teaches you that this sort of harassment is “loving” someone, not malicious. On what sanctimonious moral authority may I or you go about justifying my unsolicited opinions on other people’s lives? Someone, it’s nicer when someone thinks they’re doing you a favor, but the reality to the recipient is that they’re not.

It’s too bad we couldn’t come to an agreement here, but your engagement in the conversation was appreciated.

ilovellamas

I enjoyed reading this debate. As a gay woman, I see merits to both of your arguments. WW is right that the gay reactionary system is flawed. We want to be treated as equals, and we (well, I… I guess I can’t speak for all gays) believe that we are really no different and it’s *not a big deal* to be gay. If such is the case, we should be behaving as though it’s not a big deal. The CFA owner’s bigoted beliefs should’ve been ignored by the gay community much more than they were. Boycotting is all good; staging a gay kiss-in is obnoxious and not helping anyone. I don’t think this situation is much different – the owner is an idiot and had no business sharing his opinion with his patrons, but what he did was not illegal and it wasn’t that big of a deal. In that situation, I probably would’ve taken it up directly with him. I would’ve told him his opinion is unwelcome and I won’t be visiting his establishment anymore – and I’ll be telling my friends not to, as well. But taking this to the media is a passive-aggressive bit of ridiculousness.

On the other hand, yes, I am hurt when I encounter people who judge my lifestyle and condescend in such a manner. Sometimes people like this can cause me to get teary-eyed. Maybe I’m a pansy, but it hurts. The whole “sticks and stones” argument is all fine and dandy when it’s something you don’t encounter frequently, or from multiple people. I feel similarly when religious zealots try to tell me about Jesus, giving me pamphlets and talking about how I’m going to hell. That doesn’t make me cry, but it upsets me. I’m not an idiot, and who are you to assume I need you to “save” me? I would be upset if someone gave me this note. But again, I wouldn’t react so overtly.

Ruminum

I agree that there’s the element of disproportionate reaction, but when we mention that “what he did wasn’t illegal”, bear in mind that what these women did in response isn’t illegal either. They simply brought his expression of free speech and the public reaction to that free speech to a winder audience. If people choose not the eat at his restaurant for the beliefs he expressed and if that results in a consequence like his restaurant suffering financial losses, that’s the result of public opinion, not any legal/government infringement on his rights to free speech.

I think this is how First Amendment issues often get conflated with consequence due to public reaction. A public boycott is not government censure, it’s essentially private individuals acting in private fashion en masse. No one is stopping him from saying anything. To his last penny, he can continue to hand out letters to gay people. He could double-down and start appealing to the anti-gay public to support him and thrive. And if he chooses not to and it saves his business by changing public opinion about him, it was his choice.

What if they had been a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) and he didn’t like black people? Would it be ok then to hand them a letter stating how their relationship was harmful and shouldn’t happen?

What if they had been of a different religion than his? Maybe the woman could have been waring an abaya and he hands the couple a letter stating how he doesn’t like Muslims and their religion was harmful?

Whatever the scenario, it is ok to not like someone for whatever reason, by no means are we saying he doesn’t have that right. But what right does he to tell or judge anyone by telling them their relationship is wrong and harmful?

We’ve done the above throughout history and are still doing it. Whatever the case, he has the right to his opinion and even express it, but really, there’s a time and a place. If he doesn’t want all sorts of people to come to his restaurant and it bothers him, he should run a reservation-only establishment.

See my response to Terence for most expansion on my points. But I will say, in regards to your “but what right does he”, what right do they? THEY made it a public issue. THEY made it more than it was and started the Gay Reactionary Machine on his business.

Crumple the note and leave it on the table. Leave him a tip which consists of a snarky comment. Heck, get a gay flash mob and fill his restaurant with gay couples holding hands and kissing and holding each other in the booths. It would be a bit much, but it’s still something.

There’s -any- number of things you can do which don’t conflate the issue while making him realize his opinion wasn’t solicited in the least. He engaged in a non-violent, non-public, and non-exclusionary (again, they got the note -after- their meal) method of expressing his opinion. Maybe it’s my time in law, but I feel things should be met with equal or lesser force, not both barrels blazing right out of the gate.

No offense, but that needle shouldn’t have even pierced the skin.

Terence Ng

I’m sorry, but HE started it. HE handed them the letter. HE took it upon himself to intrude on THEIR lives, which they were living on their own with no concern for him nor animus against him. His note also makes reference to it not just being about him, but how they’re “hurting everyone around them”, which apparently reference who? Him? His customers? Everyone they know? Every person in the street who sees them? He’s making it an issue and conflating it as an issue for “everyone around them”. And, as he confirmed, it’s not the first time he’s done it. I wonder if other people he did it to wrote snarky notes, didn’t tip, or just took it on the chin. And if that’s the case, since we haven’t heard about it until now, it would seem that none of those reactions have taught him anything about giving his unsolicited opinion.

You also seem to contradict yourself. A gay flash mob wouldn’t be a way of spreading the news of this incident to the public? Somehow that would be more private? As if arranging an event like that for that purpose wouldn’t be a means of highlighting that issue? They could do anything BUT tell people what happened?

And remember, none of this would have affected his business if he hadn’t done anything. He could have been the owner of a restaurant who has personal anti-gay beliefs and no one would have cared, if he hadn’t taken it upon himself to tell them that they were hurting everyone around them. They would have paid, left a tip, and probably would have gone again in the future.

To begin with, I can say that you’re hurting everyone around yourself by making your comments. I believe you’ll know full well that isn’t the case, and is just poor appraisal on my part. -That’s- how it’s just about him. Did they see him going table to table, asking everyone if they were hurting him? Was there any indication that it was more than mere puffery trying to influence them? If not, the reasonable thing to discern was it’s -exactly- as you said: him feeling morally justified in doing what he was doing. If you take that seriously, well…Not much I can do about that. As for the last bit of your first paragraph, you can’t purport to know what has been tried in the past. For all you know, they all rolled their eyes and walked out, doing nothing but not patronizing the place again. Or maybe they stood up, clapped their hands, twirled in place, and then skipped out on the check. There is -really- no way to know, nor any way to know how, if any reaction, was received by him since the story doesn’t say as much.

As for my supposed “contradiction”, I believe I already said that it would be a bit much. Not only that, it would be far less public than, say, putting the note on the internet for it to be picked up by several aggregate sites. Might just be me, though.

True, but that isn’t what happens in society. People express their opinions, however unpopular they are, and we’re the ones who need to respond how we’re going to respond. I feel they were wrong responding as they did in this situation, because, as I said, the “Gay Reactionary Machine” swings into place and now this situation is way worse than it ever was. Just wait until some group like the HRC or Rick Santorum gets involved. It’ll be them declaring “Chick-Fil-A Day” all over again.

Ruminum

I’m pointing to the fact that he’s using others, no matter the objective reality of that statement, to indicate that his impetus is not his moral compulsion alone, but the idea that what they “are” is harmful to others. He claims it is harmful to them, arguably on some theistic level of being blind to Christ, but also that it is harmful to “everyone around them.”

Regardless of whether it’s his personal issue and his skewed perspective on reality, it’s not the same as him saying that he thinks it’s wrong and it’s an affront to him. He made a statement intended to make them feel as though they were harming others and had the responsibility, if not for themselves, then for those they are harming, to stop their wicked ways. (It wasn’t just his daughter whose life was destroyed, remember, it was also her son’s life that was ruined by her homosexuality.)

As a separate question, I noticed that you’re analyzing in the situation from the perspective that it’s isolated, that it’s a needle that shouldn’t have ever broken the skin and that they’ve blown it out of proportion. So I wonder if those women added detail that perhaps they had been the recipients of multiple other similar acts that day. Would their actions have been justified? What if they had recently been recipients of more overt racism and this was one more, albeit passive act? The straw that broke the camel’s back? What if these women had several other difficulties in their lives–a sick family member, a difficult economic situation, etc.–and this was one more unpleasantry handed them that day. Would their anger have been justified then?

People don’t react in a vacuum. They could have been perfectly happy before then, or they could have been dealing with a lot of crap. If it was the former, then it could be a fine argument that they just let it go, but if it was the latter, then I (I cannot speak for you) feel that they would have been justified to react this way.

But then, maybe that’s reason enough to act with decency and discretion.

See, they didn’t make any issue of the matter. They were simply enjoying a meal, paid, left and decided to share some affection for one another by holding hands. So, I fail to see how they made an issue of anything.

There was any number of things he could have done as well, one of them being minding his own business. He runs a restaurant that is open to the public, he should expect and accept that that’s exactly what he’s going to get. If he doesn’t want that, then as I’ve said before, he should either not work in the public sector or run a private business where he can choose his customers.

What if the two had been young women under 18 rather than two grown women? Or two young men?

Would it still be acceptable to react in the manner he did and would you still be of the same opinion as you are now?

My cousin and his boyfriend faced a similar issue a few months back. They’re both young, my cousin being 14 and his boyfriend being 15. They had bad dating for two years and had gone out to celebrate their anniversary. When they had entered the store, everything had been fine until his boyfriend decided to put his arm around his waist and stand close to him. One of employees was obviously disturbed and asked them to stop or leave. She referred to their behavior as disgusting and faggotry.

Obviously, my aunt and uncle and the parents of his boyfriend weren’t pleased and they made an issue of it with the store’s owner.

So, what if they had been teens instead of adults that he had handed the note to? Maybe he’s done it to kids already. Should that be ok? Should the parents teach their kids that they can’t show affection in public because they’re gay and it’s not socially acceptable?

Some people brought up that the conflict in his daughter’s life was more than likely brought about by his own bigoted and judgmental behavior. I have to strongly agree with that. If it destroyed her life, it was through no fault of her own, but rather brought about by those around her who choose to act like dipshits rather than human beings.

Also, he uses the past tense when referring to his daughter and uses the term “destroyed”. Could he mean that his daughter took her life and as a result also destroyed the life of her son? Or perhaps he and she are no longer on speaking terms. Either way, he blames everyone else for his daughter’s and grandson’s unhappiness but himself.

Willing to find fault in everyone else but are blind to their own whilst preaching a religion that clearly says “He who has not sinned, cast the first stone”.

Funny how humans do that.

Blinghamstar

A handwritten note of disapproval is still better than beating someone to death, so …progress, I guess….

DanielCopeland

I’m all for the publicizing of stories like this, and any other example of gross intolerance.

You have the right to free speech, and the right to have your opinions.

And we have the right, should you decide to share those opinions, to decide whether we wish to interact with you, or do business with you. Putting these stories out for the public just lets more people know that there is something they should put into consideration should they ever think about interacting with these people.

And if these are deeply held beliefs, beliefs they’re willing to share when it’s convenient for them to do so, to hide these opinions when sharing them is inconvenient is cowardice. If he’s going to be in the habit of informing the queer community of what he thinks of them, then he should be fully prepared for the consequences of doing so.

He could have simply believed them to be sinning, and then gone home and prayed for them. Instead, he chose to (after they’d given him their money, of course), give them his unsolicited opinion. They had every right to let people be familiar with the sort of person he is before they do any sort of business with him.